100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

October 31, 1970 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1970-10-31

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.



~e SirhinDaily
Eighty years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors.,This must be noted in all reprints.

. . "
.,,, : o
i y
/ '
_

.1.
' s

Electioti Pickings
DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN!
With predictions-nay statements-like that, the Chicago Tribune
would never have won our election Pickings or our genuine American
Apple Pie Prize. Of course, none of you would be as silly as that Chicago
Rag. Instead ask Madame Z how to win.
SHE SAYS that you should take. the square of the sum of
all the Democrats' head sizes, then divide it by one-half the product
of the dates on which two Republican gubernatorial candidates' signs
begin. This would give the percentage of victory for every fourth race
not including parochiaid. Three of four would go Democratic.
So with that little bit of knowledge, we are probably going to have
tons and tons of people predicting correctly and we'll have to throw all
those entries up in the air and see which one sticks to the ceiling. That
person will then be eliminated. We'll keep throwing them up on the
ceiling until they are all stuck but one. He'll be the winner, and after
finishing his pie will clean the ceiling.
BUT YOU won't even be in the running, let alone on the ceiling,
unless you bring your selections to the envelope tacked on the bulletin
board upstairs at 420 Maynard by midnight Monday.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1970

NIGHT EDITOR: DAVE CHUDWIN

The Larcom Report:
Justifying police assault.

A RECENT INVESTIGATION of alleged
police brutality at a demonstration
during last spring's Black Action Move-
ment strike exonerates x the officer in
question for reasons which should have
indicted him.
Following the release of the investiga-
tion two days ago, Mayor Robert Harris
announced that the city would no longer
press charges against the officer.
The investigation, prepared by City,
Administrator Guy Larcom, Jr., presented
two major justifications for the exonera-
tion of the officer, who was charged with
aiming a blow at a person already pinned
to the ground by another officer.
LARCOM CITED the mood of the crowd
and its subsequent effect on the offi-
cers as part of his justification for the
exoneration. The report states,s". . the
whole Police Department was unusually
tense going into this confrontation . . .
and (was) apprehensive about coping
with wholly new tactics by a new type of
large, militant organization."
But this assessment of the situation
represents one side of the story-the po-
lice's side. A spokeshian for the Black
Action Movement said recently that the
student involved in the case, T. R. Har-
rison, was never asked to present his side
of the story during Larcom's investiga-
tion.
Furthermore, students who were pres-
ent in the crowd say the group was an
amorphous one, lacking any leadership;
Initially it was awaiting the Regents' de-
cision on the BAM demands. Pictures of
the crowd (estimated at 2,000) show that
it lacked direction and cohesion. While
the police are justified in anticipating
anything, there seems no reason for them
to have remained tense once they had
observed the nature of the crowd.
PAVEMENT BRICKS thrown at the offi-
cers, Larcom states, contributed to
the officers',overall tension. Summing up
the situation Larcom says, "I was able to
place the specific incident involving this
officer in the larger picture of that con-
frontation, with respect to the size of
the crowd, the throwing of bricks and
the general disposition of the police force
with respect to the crowd."
From the accounts of student witnesses,
who were interviewed during the investi-
gation, it is clear that police reports and
their impressions were the main source
of information.
Pictures of the incident show the arrest
being made in a clearing with few stu-
dents nearby, much less a crowd. Com-
panions of the arrested student say he
never threw a brick or any other missile.
Larcom further excuses the officer on
the grounds that the officer's first blow
never hit the victim, but hit the officer
holding the student instead (breaking a
blood vessel in he officer's wrist). The
officer's second blow Larcom dismisses
as a "gesture of frustration," saying it
was not aimed at the victim.

Based on these conclusions Larcom
called the act "unjustified" and approved
a written reprimand which has been put
in the officer's file. By doing this, how-
ever, Larcom effectively dismisses the
case on the grounds that the officer miss-
ed. Is Larcom suggesting that the officer
was any less responsible for his act than
a civilian who attempts assault? Civilians
who are convicted of attempted assault
receive greater punitive measures than
written reprimands.
DUE TO AN officer's position as a pro-
tector of the law, it seems clear that
if he violates that law, his punishment
should meet, if not supercede, that given
to a civilian in similar violations. For
those in authority do not just affect
themselves and those whom they directly
contact with their actions, rather, by the
nature of their positions, their actions
affect large numbers of people.
Theoreically, it is only because they are
trusted that they are given positions
which, if abused, do in fact have such
generally disastrous consequences. Be-
cause the effects of their misuse has a
much broader affect than does the action
of a private citizen, it therefore follows
that they should be more carefully
watched and more closely disciplined.
Getting excited is a human frailty,
and one normally excusable. Police Union
president Paul Bunten says that. "police-
men are only human, they will make mis-
takes." But it should be clear that police-
men by the nature of their position
should be men who are not prone to get
excited. Because of thenature of the sit-
uations with which they must deal (ie.
confrontations with students) and the
responsibility which they possess, police
officers should not be kept on the force
if they cannot remain calm. They simply
cannot perform their job.
Larcom's report concludes that in this
case, an officer became excited and struck
at someone. The report shows that the
officer felt some hostility and tension due
to the crowd size and the flying bricks.
On the basis of these findings, one
must conclude that the officer in ques-
tion is not suited to the job of police work.
The fact that he missed the student does
not excuse him in any way, for the most
important consideration is not whether
the assault occurred, but whether the
police officer is prone to act in such a
manner.
If the officer does have a tendency to
get excited, and it appears that he does,
then he should be removed from the
force.
Larcom's report is only an investiga-
tion of an isolated incident. But if similar
incidents are treated in the same manner"
in the future, the way will be paved for
confidence by police that they may en-
gage in such activities with impunity.
Intentional or not, the Larcom report
and its consequences constitute a dan-
gerous precedent.

R
!"
as
191) The Regve
dT rine ,dcaetu┬░
"Ineed four volunteers .. . two to holie
obscenities and two to throw rock !"

r
,. .; y
s fE. ,
,. ,,
r i
',
:. !'C
-a'
r

Hail to the victors.
MICHIGAN
1. U.S. Senate: Philip A. Hart
(D) vs. Lenore Romney (R) pick
percentages
2. Governor: William G. Milli-
ken (R) vs. Sander Levin (D) pick
percentages
3. Secretary of State: E m i l
Lockwood (R) vs. Richard H. Aus-
tin (D)
4. AttorneysGeneral: Frank J.
Kelley (D)i vs. William S. Farr
Jr. (R)
5. U.S. House of Representa-
tives, 2nd District: Marvin L.
Esch (R) vs. R. Michael Still-
wagon (D)
6. U.S. House of Representa-
tives, 5th District: Gerald Ford
(R) vs. Jean McKee (D)
7. State Senator, 18th District:
Gilbert Bursley (R) vs. G e o r g e
Wahr Sallade (D)
8. State Representative, 53rd
District: Raymond J. Smit (R) vs.
Donald Edgar Koster (D)
9. Members of the Board of Re-
gents of the University of Mich-
igan, choose two:
Paul Brown (D)
James L. Waters (D
Paul G. Goebel Jr. (R)
Jack H. Shuler (R)
10. Parochiald : yes or no
11. 18-year-old vote: yes or no
12. $100,000,000 in bonds for low
income housing: yes or no
SENATORIAL
13. California: George Murphy
(R) vs. John Tunney (D)
14. Connecticut: Thomas Dodd
(Ind.) vs. Joseph Duffey (D) vs.
Lowell Weicker (R)

15. Illinois: Ralph Smith (R) vs.
Adlai Stevenson III (D)
16. Indiana: Vance Hartke (D)
vs. Michael Roudebush (R)
17. Maine: Edmund Muskie (D)
vs. Neil Bishop (R)
18. Maryland: Joseph Tydings
(D) vs. J. Glenn Beall, Jr. (R)
19. Massachusetts: E d w a r d
Kennedy (D) vs. Josiah Spaulding
(R)
20. Minnesota: Hubert H u m -
phrey (D) vs. Clark MacGregor
(R)
21. New Jersey: Harrison W i 1-
liams,-Jr. (D) vs. Nelson G r o s s
(R)
22. New York: Charles Goodell
(R) vs. Richard Ottinger (D) vs.
James Buckley (Conservative)
23. Ohio: Howard Metzenbaum
CD) vs. Robert Taft, Jr. (R)
24. Tennessee: Albert Gore (D)
vs. William Brock (R)
25. Texas: Lloyd Bentsen (D)
vs. George Bush (R)
26. Utah: Frank Moss (D) vs.
Laurence Burton (R)
27. Vermont: Winston Prouty
(R) vs. Philip Hoff (D)
28. Virginia: Harry F. Byrd, Jr.
(Ind.) vs. Ray Garland (R) vs.
George C. Rawlings (D)
29. Wyoming: Gale McGee (D)
vs. John Wold CR)
GUBERNATORIAL
30. California: Ronald Reagan
(R) vs. Jesse Unruh (D)
31. New York: Nelson R o c k e-
feller (R) vs. Arthur Goldberg (D)
32. Ohio: John Gilligan (D) vs.
Roger Cloud (R)_,

F

Seeking peaceful coexistence*
for Jewish and Arab states

4,

EDITOR'S NOTE: The fol-
lowing article was written by
the Ann Arbor Israeli\ Student
Organization as a reply to an
earlier article by the local Arab
Student Organization.)
WE WELCOME this opportunity
for an exchange of views on
paper with the local Arab Student
Organization. We further hope
that it might lead to a true, open,
direct and perhaps friendly future
exchange of words. We particular-
ly welcome the change in tone of
the Arab position-like the state-
ment that as a result of "a revo-
lutionary change of attitude" the
Jews are no more seen as "mon-
sters, supermen, or eternal ene-
mies."
Unfortunately, the rest of the
position of our "cousins" worries
us a little, like the statement that
"they clearly identify their enemy
as the racist-settler State of Israel
and its Western allies." This state-
ment goes hand inhand with the
glorification of the Arab "out-
bursts of violence" in Palestine
during 1936-39 sand with the at-
tempt to describe this episide as
the forerunner of other national
revolutions in India, Africa, etc.
Let us just mention a few facts:
The head of that 36-39 rising was
the notorious religious 1 e a d e r
(Mufti of Jerusalem) who was
Hitler's guest in Berlin (1940-45),
and who demanded from Hitler as
price for Arab support the gas-
chamber genocide of Palestinian
Jews (Hitler believed that the
genocide of Semites is only neces-
sary in Europe . . ).
The Mufti managed to escape
the Nuremberg trials and from his
refuge in Saudi Arabia he still
calls today for a Holy War against
the Jews. As a matter of fact, the
British partly yielded to the Muf-
ti's demands (White Paper, 1939),
resulting in the notorious segre-
gation rules (Jews were not al-
lowed to buy land or houses in
90 per cent of Palestine) and in
the inhumane immigration rules
(even children or parents of Pales-
tinian Jews could not be saved
from Hitler's genocide through
legal immigration to Palestine).
THE ONLY successful guerrilla
warfare in recent Middle East
History was fought by the Jewish
underground in Palestine (1945-
47), resulting in the first retreat
of British Imperialism. This war-
fare was directed against British
soldiers but not against Arabs or
other civilians. After the United
Nations decided (1947) to create
both a Jewish and an Arab State
in Palestine, it was the British
General Club, commanding the

"Arab Legion" (with the help of
British officers) who fought the
Israeli Army in 1948 and in the
meantime annexed the Arab areas
of Palestine to the Hashemite
Kingdom (the Palestinians did not
fight it then!). British Royal Air
Force planes, helping King Far-
ouk's army in 1948-49, were shot
down by the Israeli Air Force, not
by Palestinian Guerrillas.
Twenty-two years latersthere
are 15,000 Russian soldiers and
advisers in Egypt, Syria, etc., and
just before the last Suez cease-fire
there were Russian pilots, flying
Russian Migs, who were shot down
by the Israeli Air Force. The
Johnny - come - lately imperialist
forces in the Middle East are de-
finitely not on the Israeli side.
On the other hand, the U.S.
sixth fleet intervened only when
Lebanon and Jordan were in
danger, but it is remaining neutral
when Israel is facing the Russian
Mediterranean fleet in Alexadria,
Port Said, and Latakia. Militarily,
the Palestinian Guerrilla's threat
to Israel, is negligible compared to
the new Russian missile threat on
the Suez Canal.
The above does not mean that
the Israeli are ignoring the Pales-
tinian Revolution. The mere con-
cept of "Palestine" was created
when Imperialist France and Brit-
ain divided the Ottoman empire
in 1917-19. Even today, many
Arabs (including some of the 10
Fedayeen groups!) do not rec-.
ognize a Palestinian nationality,
only an Arab one.
IN SPITE of that, most Israelis
(including Cabinet Ministers) are
ready to recognize a separate
Arab-Palestinian nationalism. Un-
fortunately, thearidiculous but
tragic fact is that none of the
"Palestine Liberation Movements"
have been ready to recognize a
Jewish-Israeli nationalism. They
are in favor of a national auto-
nomy for the Kurds in Iraq but
not for the Hebrew speaking sec-
ular Jewish Society in Israel.
This tragic misconception leads
to the statement: "Thus all Jew-
ish Palestinians-at present Is-
raelis-(will) have the same rights
provided they reject Zionist Chau-
vinism (i.e. Jewish nationalism)
and fully accept to live as Pales-
tinians in the new Palestine." This
in turn means that the Jewish
majority of a future "new Pales-
tine" will not have even minority
rights. (By any statistic there are
fewer Palestinian Arabs than Is-
raeli Jews). If this is going to be
the nature of the future demo-
cratic State of Palestine, it keeps
us wondering: Who is fooling
whom?

At least a more consistent posi-
tion is found in the Palestinian
Charter of 1968 (reaffirmed by
Fatah and the other 9 groups in
1970) which promises equal rights
only to the Jews who have been
there "before the start of the
Zionist invasion" (read 1917 or. at
best, 1948). This means that the
majority of present Israelis face
expulsion to "their countries of
origin." In fact, the 14 Arab coun-
tries, from where the majority of
present Israeli Jews originate,
have been approached by Fatah to
allow in principle such forced im-
migration or deportation.
THEREFORE, WE see that the
Arab nature of the "New Pales-
tine" (all 10 groups insist on this
Arab nature) can be achieved only
in (1) and undemocratic state if
most of the Jews are not deported
(or slaughtered) or, alternatively,
(2) in a truly democratic state on-
ly after such deportation (or
slaughter). We would like very
much to get a clarification on
this matter from our Palestinian
and/or, Arab cousins.
Israelis usually support one of
3 possible solutions. The extreme
right calls for one Israel (covering
all of British Mandate Palestine)
with minority rights for the Arab
("Palestinian") minority). Some
extreme left groups call for one
binational Israel (Palestine) with
equal rights for both Jews (ma-
jority) and Arabs (minority). The
majority of Israelis (including the
local organization) call for two
states, one ("Israel") for the Jews,
and another (call it "Palestine" or
"Jordan") for the Arabs.
TO SUM UP, most Israelis be-
lieve that besides a vast area with
14 or 15 Arab states, there is room
for a small Jewish state. Past ex-
perience does not encourage them
to become again a repressed min-
ority (or majority) in an Arab
state. This does not preclude the
possibility that after a decent pe-
riod of peaceful regional coope-
ration there could not come a
period of regional federation.
In spite of continuous war the
Israeli standard of living (includ-
ing the Arab minority) has in-
creased almost tenfold in one gen-
eration. We would like to see the
same progress spread to the entire
region and we would like to take
an active part in this kind of
battle rather than the present
type of war. This is our dream of
the future. We hope to get another
chance to discuss it with our cous-
ins. Why couldn't a start be made
right here in Ann Arbor?

- balaneing teaeups
Murphy's law:
Stronger than dlirt

I

I nadine cohodas ----I
THE HISTORY of the American West, at least on TV and in the
movies, is full of do-gooders who galloped into town one day and
laid down the law 'n order. There was Wyatt Earp who cleaned up
Dodge City and later Tuscon, Ariz. And there was Marshall Pat Garret
who also did some Tucson law work but is best know for finally nailing
Billy the Kid.
And then there was Matt Dillon who cleaned up Dodge City again
after Wyatt left, and Bat Masterson. with his cane and derby hat who
cleaned up some other city out west. Maybe it was Witchita (or Abilene
or maybe even Dodge which had a long history of needing that sort
of legal house keeping.
However, it's been a long time since America has produced such
white knights. But very recently one charged into New York City;
Former Detroit Police Commissioner Patrick J. Murphy.
In a blunt and stirring speech to New York's top police officials
last Wednesday, Murphy laid down the law: Rid your commands of
corruption ... or face demotion.
"Indications of corruption must be exposed and expunged .
Let the word to go out to every precinct station house, to every detec-
tive squad room, to every command and every man on every post," the
commissioner declared, not wishing to exclude anyone. "We will not
tolerate dishonesty in any form."
THE NEW YORK TIMES reported that Murphy's speech was the,
toughest address on law enforcement in nearly a decade. It was not
only tough, but clearly reversed the historical precedents for conduct
by public officials set by such eminent New Yorkers as Tammany Boss
George Washington Plunkitt who made a distinction between graft and
"honest graft."
Discounting this Plunkittesque ideology, Murphy told his men,
"except for your paycheck there is no such things as a clean buck ...
It is just as dishonest to accept the favor of the traffic violator as it is
to exact a gratituity from the liquor licensee."

PH

I

-CARLA RAPOPORT

I

Letters to The Daily

Sexuality
To the Daily:
THE ARTICLE by Leah Fritz on
the Myths Surrounding Female
Sexuality was a dangerously con-
fusing account of feminine sexual-
ity.
Though Fritz began with the
diagnosis of woman as 'chick' and

Leah's emphasis on sexual inter-
course as a 'final' act only fabri-
cates even more the gaudy web of
myths concerning sexuality, which
is used to oppress and subjugate
women. In order to keep women
running scared after masters,
magazines, television, newspapers,
school, church, psychiatrists (cum
Eriksen cum PFreuid)t.e 1 1 her

a reward for 'good' behavior
(their prestige) but if a woman
dares to resist this definition of
herself and remains alone, she is
assaulted with epithets of 'unde-
sirable' or 'old-maid'.
But thsse terms no longer shock
or disgust us. In fact to be desir-
able by chauvinist males o n 1 y

To show he meant business, Murphy promised to "hold each of you
personally accountable for any misconduct within the ranks at any
level of your command. It is my responsibility," the commissioner re-
minded them, "to remove from high rank anyone among you who can-
not or will not meet the high standards of the executive level."

ow

Ell~-~ Pw MR~iQ"w. N& :CAS.UY. 7 170-; i

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan